The purpose of philosophy

I read some posts over at Tufts Philosophy blog, The Web of Belief, and some of them got me thinking about why I want to do philosophy. Here's what I have so far.

Dustin argues that ethics is the center of philosophy, since philosophy is the love of wisdom and wisdom involves the proper assignment of value (which then can lead to proper action). This assumes that philosophy has a "central" or "more basic" field, and it's not clear to me that it does. But I do agree that questions of value must factor into any answer about the purpose of philosophy.

I'm happy with the general gist of Blakely's approach, which focuses on the methodology of philosophy. She pins the purpose of philosophy down as: "making one's beliefs consistent in areas in which it's not clear what to believe."

A relevant problem I see here is that there are usually multiple ways to make one's beliefs consistent, and it is often unclear which way is best. Suppose you and I agree that "If A then B". We might still disagree on whether "A" or "not-B" is more plausible.

Example: Consider the possibility that you were abducted last night, your brain removed and placed into a machine which keeps it alive while also feeding in a completely convincing computer-generated reality, a la The Matrix. In such a scenario, you have been made into a "brain-in-a-vat": you are alive, but you have no body, even though it seems to you that you have a body. Now consider this "If A then B" claim: If I know I have a body, then I know I'm not a brain-in-a-vat (BIV). The Moorean takes "I know I have a body" to be more plausible, and concludes from this that he knows he's not a BIV. The skeptic takes "I don't know I'm not a BIV" to be more plausible, and therefore concludes he does not know he has a body.

When confronted with such a situation, one knows exactly what it takes to make one's beliefs consistent, but it can sometimes be hard to see what's the best way to achieve consistency. To figure out what to believe, it seems we'll have to figure out what claims we feel are more important to preserve. And that seems to take us back to Dustin's point about values....

Here is my take on the purpose and value of philosophy, which really is a statement of the reasons I have for wanting to work in the field. These are ordered, beginning from concrete points and leading to more airy, fuzzy and idealistic points:

1. Much philosophical work is concerned with demonstrating statements of the form "If A then B": that given certain presuppositions, you reach certain conclusions
2. Learning and engaging in such philosophical argumentation has a certain "fun factor" (I find it enjoyable to engage in it), and this is a central reason I do philosophy.
3. Also, philosophical work builds up our ability to examine our own presuppositions critically and to consider seriously the possibilities that are opened up when we modify those presuppositions.
4. It seems possible that, with sufficient activity, we might hit upon a way to reframe our perspective in a way which is significantly more "satisfying" than our current perspective.
5. So another central reason I do philosophy is founded on a) an underlying sense of dissatisfaction with my current understanding of and perspective on the world and b) a hope that by poking around enough I'll hit on ways to improve it.
6. Finally, I find that many of the barriers to our ability, as humans, to live together well have to do with fundamental differences in the way that we understand ourselves and the world we live in.
7. I have a hope that the sort of rationally-based exploration of perspectives and ideas can, when done well, improve our capacity to flourish in human community. Hence, I want to do what I can, as a philosopher, to contribute to this.

Fujifilm FinePix F30

I don't usually plug products, but it seems this deal is worth mentioning. In short: the Fujifilm FinePix F30 is currently the best value in subcompact digital cameras, selling for approximately $265: $315 (including shipping), minus a $50 manufacturer's rebate that's good until July 15.

Karen and I have been using the Nikon Coolpix 5000 to take pictures. The camera, though considerably smaller than an SLR, is still a bit too bulky to carry around everywhere, and we find ourselves missing photo opportunities simply because we didn't want to trouble ourselves with carrying the camera.

It seems an ultracompact is in order. Other than size and price, the features most important to us were:

• Photo quality
• 6-8 megapixels (any more is overkill)
• 2.5" or greater LCD screen (so much of the fun of digital is showing others your pictures)
• Camera performance (e.g., startup, battery life and shutter lag)

The F30 stood out, mainly because of its low-light performance---it claims to be the first compact camera that features a 3200 ISO rating. This unique feature greatly increases the range of situations under which a photo can be captured. Thus, the camera is competitive with expensive ultracompacts which have features like more pixels and optical image stabilization like the Sony CyberShot DSC-T30 ($380) and the Canon PowerShot SD700 IS ($428). But its $265 price (after rebate) means it's priced similarly to cameras like the Casio Exilim EX-Z850 ($300) and HP Photosmart R927 ($265), and just a notch above budget ultracompacts like the Pentax Optio S6 ($200). The F30 also has aperture and shutter priority modes. In the end, dcresource.com's very positive review made it an easy choice for me.

A negative point is that the F30 uses xD memory cards, which currently max out at 1GB.

You can read the manual for the F30 here (6.2MB PDF file).